the difference between the strange things we discovered about the universe and that religious bullshit is that we didn't just fill blanks with shit that was made up by simpletons thousands of years ago which contradicts itself constantly and has no logical core.

if there is a "god" it will be nothing like in any of the religious texts we know, for once because those gods are just terribly thought through and obviously made up, and also because those gods always seem to care for a tiny rock floating in a gigantic universe with trillions and trillions of similar rocks.

and also life after death is not possible under our current knowledge of the rules of the universe... same with "souls"
so unless we discover some truly and completely groundbreaking discovery that's not gonna change

Member

That’s ass backwards. Scientists should not be running with things until they are disproven, or they are no different than a preacher or something who has faith running with something until it’s disproven. That is a religious way of going about.

When I grew up, theory was always at the end of it, they slowly removed the ‘theory’ and it should be brought back because words have meaning.

Scientist should not be running on faith scenarios until it’s disproven, they should be running on facts only and be 100% open skeptics for everything else not proven scientific fact. Otherwise, you have a chance of running into heavy confirmation bias with your peers, and another religion is born.

When you grew up - when was that? The big bang has been a serious scientific theory for over 60 years, and was hypothesized long before that.

Scientific theories are never proven, only disproven. Given enough evidence they can become accepted, but there's nothing that says a new theory can't supersede an old one. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with faith.

Dark Matter, Black holes and singularity are entirely different things:

Singularity - presumed inside of black hole, also initial state of our universe. Infinitely dense that doesn't have volume but only a point.

Black Hole - Star that collapses under its own gravity into singularity creating even horizon in which spacetime is so warped that it removes object falling into black hole at point of horizon from our spacetime alltogether

Dark Matter - Stuff that we can see in sky via gravitational lensing but we don't know anything other that it is not reacting with anything in our universe other than gravity and that impact on gravity in our universe does not affect dark matter itself which doesn't clump together under force of it.

That's not how it works. The previous info wasn't the "right" info. It was the best info based on the current available evidence. When new evidence is observed and confirmed, the info is updated.

If the info never got updated, then it would be more akin to a dogma or more like a religion.

When you learn something new about the world, you update your understanding of the world. If we never did the "Until science changes its mind" part of your critique, you wouldn't be typing that thought on your pocket supercomputer/masturbation facilitator right now.

Okay, fair enough, but it would help if the scientific community was more willing to apply skepticism to its own conclusions in the meanwhile, then, in order to demonstrate this attitude. Instead, those who doubt scientific consensus are met with aggressive browbeating and arrogance.

They do. When new evidence is observed, the consensus changes. That's why we're using general relativity and quantum mechanics instead of only the laws of universal gravitation. Look at the world around us. The method works. We have sky boats and thinking machines and instant communication. We live longer and are more powerful than at any other point in our species' recorded history.

There are some scientific communities that maybe be more resistant to new info than others, but in the face of overwhelming evidence, there is inevitable change and progress. Skepticism is already a huge part of the process which is why peer reviews are so important. The browbeating and arrogance is more of an exception, not the rule.

Patient MembeR

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Religions don't update their information. They just reinterpret and rationalize their beliefs to fit the original dogma, usually via some version of God of the gaps.

They do. When new evidence is observed, the consensus changes. That's why we're using general relativity and quantum mechanics instead of only the laws of universal gravitation. Look at the world around us. The method works. We have sky boats and thinking machines and instant communication. We live longer and are more powerful than at any other point in our species' recorded history.

There are some scientific communities that maybe be more resistant to new info than others, but in the face of overwhelming evidence, there is inevitable change and progress. Skepticism is already a huge part of the process which is why peer reviews are so important. The browbeating and arrogance is more of an exception, not the rule.

New discoveries are almost never able to present "a face of overwhelming evidence", which is why the community can be resistant to new ideas. Within the scientific communities, some studieshave suggestedthat dark matterdoesn't exist at all. To suggest that the scientific community is unified isn't accurate. As you mentioned, the method works as long as the consensus changes when new evidence is observed, but new evidence isn't almost never accepted into the consensus right away.

Rodent Whores

I don't think so. Based on your comments about how the scientific community is arrogant, it sounded like you were making a science seems a lot like religion argument, which I would disagree with. If I misunderstood, then nevermind.

Patient MembeR

I don't think so. Based on your comments about how the scientific community is arrogant, it sounded like you were making a science seems a lot like religion argument, which I would disagree with. If I misunderstood, then nevermind.

Depends. Dark matter is not yet a part of scientific consensus, as I pointed out in the previous linked studies. The scientific community was skeptical toward heliocentric theory and special relativity, yet here we are. Conversely, the scientific community clung to the theory of aether and Newtonian gravity. There's a fine line between skepticism and circling the wagons around an idea, and humans don't do a very good job of riding that line.

Dark matter is a plausible theory. It explains a lot of things, and personally I think it's likely, but the so-called "scientific community" is not unified on the topic. There should be no violent reaction when laymen point out a lack of consensus on a scientific topic. Yet, when something challenges the theory, it is taken as an attack on the scientific method itself, or in your words "it sounded like you were making a science seem a lot like religion argument".

Member

There should be no violent reaction when laymen point out a lack of consensus on a scientific topic. Yet, when something challenges the theory, it is taken as an attack on the scientific method itself, or in your words "it sounded like you were making a science seem a lot like religion argument".

I may have missed it, but I don’t see anywhere in this thread which would indicate a violent reaction towards skepticism of dark matter. In general, the only time I see the brow beating and arrogance that you’ve mentioned is when a scientific topic gets politicized - something like climate change. And usually it’s not scientists that are doing the brow-beating, but other laymen on behalf of their “side”.

Rodent Whores

There should be no violent reaction when laymen point out a lack of consensus on a scientific topic. Yet, when something challenges the theory, it is taken as an attack on the scientific method itself, or in your words "it sounded like you were making a science seem a lot like religion argument".

- Develop medicine
- Help improve food production and quality
- Create high quality biodegradable materials
- Build engines, machines and tools that work just as good as before, but use up less energy
- Clean up pollution, or generate ways for things to create less pollution

Nah..... I'll look at the stars and try to determine things like Big Bang, blackholes, and what it's like to live on a "similar to Earth planet" 83,653 light years away

If it werent for satellites communication, modern world would collapse. Thanks to satellites we know more about the earth and her climate than ever before. Without space exploration, satellites would not have advanced at all.

History is longer than 50 years. If you want a concrete example of fundamental research that led to useful applications, magnetic resonance imaging is a good example. It's an invaluable diagnostic tool, and came from fundamental research in nuclear physics. If you go back a bit further, more or less every piece of electronics you own is based on quantum mechanics. When will astrophysics be important? I don't know, that doesn't mean it won't be. At its core, the research is motivated by our curiosity to understand that which we do not, and that is a part of our culture.

If you want to talk about prioritized spending in the face of global problems, I think there are a lot better targets than fundamental science.

Says the dude spending his time arguing on a video-game forum when he could be out there helping others.
Heck, why even play and make video-games, when all that time and money could be used to save starving children?

It's funny that I only ever see these ignorant arguments crop up when it comes to space exploration and astronomy, but never when it comes to discussion of an entertainment product. Why even have artists, painters, musicians and writers when they could be helping others? The same dumb logic applies to your very own interests.

NASA represents 0.49% of the U.S. budget and from that half-percent we gain invaluable knowledge about the fundamental question of where we come from and our place in the cosmos. I'd say gaining a better understanding about the nature of our existence is a worthwhile endeavor.

Member

While I have doubts about dark matter (a dumb name) being older than measurable matter, I see this 'just a theory' fallacy constantly.
In scientific nomenclature, there is a HUGE difference between "hypothesis" and "theory."

A hypothesis is an idea which has not been proven. Scientists create hypotheses and then perform experiments to prove whether the idea is correct or incorrect.

A theory is based on already-proven facts.
When you drop a rock, it will always fall down, which is where the theory of gravity comes from.
When measuring changes over generations, we can see how adaptations build up over time, which is where the theory of evolution comes from.
When you measure the expansion of the universe and use supercomputers to simulate what it looked like ~14 billion years ago, it was all formed from a single point, which is where the Big Bang Theory comes from.

A theory is just a name for something which attempts to link together provable facts into one cohesive equation. You could just as easily call it a 'law of laws' or 'umbrella law' or something like that.
While using words like "dark matter" and "theory" are a bit silly because they have multiple meanings in language, and can give people the wrong idea, claiming that something is 'just a theory' is even more ignorant than poor word-choice.

So, to answer your question, they refer to the Big Bang Theory as if it's a fact because it is based on facts. The important elements of the BBT (expanding universe, created from a single point, conservation of energy and mass, etc.) are all already proven beyond any doubt. Having the word "theory" in the name is irrelevant. You could call it "Billy Bob" and it could still be just as correct and factual.

Member

Our mind struggle at the idea that something could exist since forever, cause all we know starts and ends at some point. Fact is that our concept of time is totally connected to how we are made.

Dark matter, is a name we have given to "something" that we misured but we can't compreend. The same as been for dark holes until we finally managed to "create" a picture of them. So yes it seems totally possibile.

Member

Our understanding of gravity can explain why an apple falls from a tree and how our planet orbits the sun. But when it comes to the most gigantic things ...

curiosity.com

"The great challenge for modified gravity is to reproduce the successes on large-scales of modern cosmology; the challenge for dark matter is to reproduce the details of the smallest scales correctly," writes Segal. But in terms of evidence, dark matter is winning — even if you have to take it with some healthy uncertainty.

Member

While I have doubts about dark matter (a dumb name) being older than measurable matter, I see this 'just a theory' fallacy constantly.
In scientific nomenclature, there is a HUGE difference between "hypothesis" and "theory."

A hypothesis is an idea which has not been proven. Scientists create hypotheses and then perform experiments to prove whether the idea is correct or incorrect.

A theory is based on already-proven facts.
When you drop a rock, it will always fall down, which is where the theory of gravity comes from.When measuring changes over generations, we can see how adaptations build up over time, which is where the theory of evolution comes from.
When you measure the expansion of the universe and use supercomputers to simulate what it looked like ~14 billion years ago, it was all formed from a single point, which is where the Big Bang Theory comes from.

A theory is just a name for something which attempts to link together provable facts into one cohesive equation. You could just as easily call it a 'law of laws' or 'umbrella law' or something like that.
While using words like "dark matter" and "theory" are a bit silly because they have multiple meanings in language, and can give people the wrong idea, claiming that something is 'just a theory' is even more ignorant than poor word-choice.

So, to answer your question, they refer to the Big Bang Theory as if it's a fact because it is based on facts. The important elements of the BBT (expanding universe, created from a single point, conservation of energy and mass, etc.) are all already proven beyond any doubt. Having the word "theory" in the name is irrelevant. You could call it "Billy Bob" and it could still be just as correct and factual.

Responding to the bolded: Darwin and the Theory of Evolution is always brought up as a bedrock of modern science. However, it's ironic that Origin of Species does not actually provide anything concrete on how new species are created; but rather shows how an existing organism adapts to local conditions.

I know that can sound a bit "out there", but it really isn't. Evolution works perfectly in regards to say a wing growing more muscular over time as a species of bird is required to fly further to find food, or a beak shape changing to account for different food sources on different islands. However, it takes a tortured application of the theory to make make it account for the formation of extremely complex organs to appear suddenly, and the fossil record contradicts the application of the theory, as well.

Here's some people much smarter than myself talking about it. If you like longer videos, check it out:

I find this irrefutable. In a world where multiple dimensions and possibly even universes exist, there's no question in my mind that there is some outside force or some place where our conscience is stored and/or carried over after death.

Member

I find this irrefutable. In a world where multiple dimensions and possibly even universes exist, there's no question in my mind that there is some outside force or some place where our conscience is stored and/or carried over after death.

I find that line of logic hard to follow. Given all of that, what your saying sounds possible, but there's really nothing out there to suggest that anything is influencing our mind/consciousness other than the physical reality we perceive. This is why someone like me claims to be agnostic: I have no knowledge that would make me think anything like what you're describing exists, so I treat is just like I treat the idea we're all in a computer simulation. Fun thing to think about, doesn't really impact my daily life at all.

Member

I find that line of logic hard to follow. Given all of that, what your saying sounds possible, but there's really nothing out there to suggest that anything is influencing our mind/consciousness other than the physical reality we perceive. This is why someone like me claims to be agnostic: I have no knowledge that would make me think anything like what you're describing exists, so I treat is just like I treat the idea we're all in a computer simulation. Fun thing to think about, doesn't really impact my daily life at all.

Multiverses sounds crazy too, and so do parallel dimensions even though they may change the physical realm as we know it with infinite possibilities, so things like a spiritual realm and even time machines shouldn't sound crazy.

Member

Member

Multiverses sounds crazy too, and so do parallel dimensions even though they may change the physical realm as we know it with infinite possibilities, so things like a spiritual realm and even time machines shouldn't sound crazy.

All of those seem within the realm of what's possible, yes, but you're saying there's no question in your mind that our conscience is stored or carried over after death...I think there's a huge jump between to go from saying something is possible to there's no question in your mind it's the case.

Member

I find this irrefutable. In a world where multiple dimensions and possibly even universes exist, there's no question in my mind that there is some outside force or some place where our conscience is stored and/or carried over after death.

It makes a lot more sense than saying your consciousness just blinks out of existence.

One is something we can comprehend (life after death) the other is something we can't even begin to comprehend (non-existence) so if we're gonna play the Occam's Razor game I'd say the concept we can somewhat comprehend is more likely than the incomprehensible one.

Let's compare it to the size of the universe, yes the universe is bigger than we as a human could really fully comprehend, but heck, we can get the gist of it (it's really big)

I dare say for something to be true it would have to be something that we can at least comprehend in a minuscule way.

Member

It makes a lot more sense than saying your consciousness just blinks out of existence.

One is something we can comprehend (life after death) the other is something we can't even begin to comprehend (non-existence) so if we're gonna play the Occam's Razor game I'd say the concept we can somewhat comprehend is more likely than the incomprehensible one.

Let's compare it to the size of the universe, yes the universe is bigger than we as a human could really fully comprehend, but heck, we can get the gist of it (it's really big)

I dare say for something to be true it would have to be something that we can at least comprehend in a minuscule way.

Because time machines, multiverses, and parallel universes make more sense than heaven or hell? All the afterlife and purgatory are IMO, are just another universe.

So I don't necessarily agree with the notion that this somehow renders Christianity obsolete because they're just as unfathomable to the living intellect, unless you can rip into space-time, in which it isn't far off from the afterlife IMO.

Member

Responding to the bolded: Darwin and the Theory of Evolution is always brought up as a bedrock of modern science. However, it's ironic that Origin of Species does not actually provide anything concrete on how new species are created; but rather shows how an existing organism adapts to local conditions.

I know that can sound a bit "out there", but it really isn't. Evolution works perfectly in regards to say a wing growing more muscular over time as a species of bird is required to fly further to find food, or a beak shape changing to account for different food sources on different islands. However, it takes a tortured application of the theory to make make it account for the formation of extremely complex organs to appear suddenly, and the fossil record contradicts the application of the theory, as well.

Here's some people much smarter than myself talking about it. If you like longer videos, check it out:

Yes, it is true that Darwinian evolution falls apart in regards to the creation of species and the formation of complex organs. But that's perfectly fine because he basically never discusses them, outside of vague philosophical discussion.

You are incorrect, though when claiming that it's difficult for organs to appear suddenly, or that the fossil record disagrees with the theory of evolution.

Organs are not the type of thing which typically survives fossilization. They're not very dense, so they break down quickly and end up vanishing from the record. That explains why we don't see them very often in regards to fossilized discoveries. As for them appearing quickly, that's perfectly in line with evolution. Radical mutations (changes) create radical differentiations among species, which is why they essentially appear 'instantly' even though they're actually following the same path as everything else.
Similarly, the vast changes in the fossil record account for this same phenomenon. It only takes one tiny little genetic mutation to account for massive phenotypic differences, and those differences could create a significantly more impressive organism (survivably-speaking) which passes genes on.

I'm very curious to see what you mean when you say the fossil record contradicts the theory of evolution, because it all fits up essentially perfectly from what I've seen. It is a theory, after all. As I said before, a theory is not some random idea posited by an aspiring student-scientist. Theories are ideas which seek to unify already-existing laws of nature. The theory itself may be wrong, it's true (albeit extremely rarely), but the laws themselves have been proven without a doubt. At this point, evolution is just as proven and reliable and measurable as something easily taken for granted, like photosynthesis.

And now, in an attempt to be even mildly on-topic, I'm not particularly surprised by a hypothesis like the one posed in the OP. The headline is shit, as usual, but the idea within the article isn't all that hard to suppose.
Stephen Hawking (I'm pretty sure it was him. If not, it was some other major scientist) posited the idea that our universe was created by a collision of other universes; or perhaps "dimensions" would be a better term to use.
Framing the situation as 'before the Big Bang' is a bit silly, because the Big Bang is what created Space-Time, and therefore there is no such thing as 'before,' but it's still an interesting idea.
I don't see why Dark Matter couldn't simply be a part of a dimension we are not privy to, which is just bleeding symptoms into our universe. It's pretty far-fetched, but it's certainly not some completely unimaginable concept. It's a bit frustrating, because that would imply the discovery of yet another facet of our universe over which we have zero control and even ability to reliably measure; but that kinda just fits in line with the other insane stuff we've discovered recently.

As a whole, I wouldn't be surprised if the hypothesis in the OP is correct, and I also wouldn't be surprised it's wildly off the mark. We in that realm, at this point, where almost any physics-based idea is possible.